Religious fervour

[Kiid]

Also gravity~~~

[artyboy]

I call myself a spiritless, but again I don't full believe in that too.

I believe what ever I want and no can tell I cant.

I find atheist can be the same as any other religion full of crap lol!!!

You didn't notice that I said I'm interested in a historical bases.

[Wade]

No, it's not an in between thing, it's not half believing. Agnostic is like 'Lovely story....now prove it'

The reason why I call myself agnostic is because I do not believe in any religion at all, that is my choice.

I also don't believe that Deity's exist in the manner that other's do, but if you want to prove me wrong then that is fine, bring this god before me.

I'm am neither a thiest or athiest because I do not believe there is a a deity that created this universe, no being is capable of that, it boggles the mind.

I cannot bring myself to deny god doesn't exist because I believe that God does exist but just not in the manner that most people believe.

Agnost does exist because not everything is black or white

The word agnostic doesn't in and of itself refer to an actual belief or disbelief in God. It's merely a way of saying that you're unwilling to proclaim that God exists or doesn't exist because neither side has been proven. There are many definitions of the word around which is probably the REAL origin of confusion and when I call myself an agnostic atheist I'm basically saying "I think it's impossible to know but I personally don't believe in God". By using the agnostic atheist term and applying it to myself I can easily get the point across that I don't believe in a deity, but that I'm leaving a small room for doubt due to the "God doesn't exist" side being theoretically impossible to prove. It all depends on how you view the nature of evidence.

You both make very good points, and I can understand your points of view. But the fact that your atheism is agnostic in a sense in no ways diminishes your actual atheism (directed more to SolemnBoy here because we are talking semantics now, and I may be repeating myself, if so I apologize).

If the term agnostic is there to explain that you're leaving room for doubt (which I do too by the way, I don't think our beliefs are different at all) then why not add agnostic (no knowledge, right) to every descriptor of belief for which you have doubt? We don't do that because it's implied that our all knowledge and beliefs are not absolute. I believe in evolution, but I wouldn't call myself an agnostic evolutionist in order to clarify for others that I can't disprove the idea that a creator made everything, including evidence for evolution. Why does the non belief of god need a qualifier?

[partisan]

Im more inclined to believe in a God that not one. Saying there is nothing is just as stupid as any religion. Agnosticism is the only true state.

[Kiid]

Im more inclined to believe in Gods that not one.

[Wade]

Actually... new point. SolemnBoy, you say that agnostic is "merely a way of saying that you're unwilling to proclaim that God exists or doesn't exist," but I think that's kind of a cop out, no? Please know, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, that just doesn't make any sense to me. If you're unwilling to proclaim whether there exists a god or not, then that means you do not believe in a God. It certainly doesn't mean you do believe in a God. If I closed my eyes and someone put a random object in front of me, and asked whether I believed the object is an apple or not, I would say "well, there could be an apple or it might not be." That would be avoiding the question. The true answer to whether I believe an apple is in front of me, if I'm not positive yes or no, is no I do not believe an apple is in front of me. That doesn't mean that it's impossible for there to be an apple in front of me.

Again, I don't think we're arguing beliefs, I just don't see why "agnostic" is necessary. It's not adding anything to the term atheist that isn't already implied. At the most it softens the blow from what's considered a word that has lot of negative connotations attached to it.

[SolemnBoy]

You both make very good points, and I can understand your points of view. But the fact that your atheism is agnostic in a sense in no ways diminishes your actual atheism (directed more to SolemnBoy here because we are talking semantics now, and I may be repeating myself, if so I apologize).

If the term agnostic is there to explain that you're leaving room for doubt (which I do too by the way, I don't think our beliefs are different at all) then why not add agnostic (no knowledge, right) to every descriptor of belief for which you have doubt? We don't do that because it's implied that our all knowledge and beliefs are not absolute. I believe in evolution, but I wouldn't call myself an agnostic evolutionist in order to clarify for others that I can't disprove the idea that a creator made everything, including evidence for evolution. Why does the non belief of god need a qualifier?

That's one of the better questions you can ask an agnostic atheist so well chosen! When it comes to the gods of ancient Mesopotamia, magical sparkle-fairies and other beings I don't need to classify myself an agnostic because nobody cares and the debate of their existence or nonexistence is insignificant. When it comes to the question of a God, however, we're dealing with something that's had a fundamental impact on the history of humanity and the world we live in. Thus it's more natural to take a stance and actually make it known where you stand - sooner or later it will be brought to discussion and it's one of the most important questions of our time in several regards.

You kind of got me on evolution though. If someone pressed me to answer in such terms I'd have to call myself agnostic in that department as well but it'd leave a sour taste in my mouth. I simply don't wish to proclaim "there are no gods" when I find it more comfortable, ACCURATE and respectful to say "I don't believe in any gods but it's impossible to know". Hope I'm not coming off as stupid.

[SolemnBoy]

Actually... new point. SolemnBoy, you say that agnostic is "merely a way of saying that you're unwilling to proclaim that God exists or doesn't exist," but I think that's kind of a cop out, no? Please know, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, that just doesn't make any sense to me. If you're unwilling to proclaim whether there exists a god or not, then that means you do not believe in a God. It certainly doesn't mean you do believe in a God. If I closed my eyes and someone put a random object in front of me, and asked whether I believed the object is an apple or not, I would say "well, there could be an apple or it might not be." That would be avoiding the question. The true answer to whether I believe an apple is in front of me, if I'm not positive yes or no, is no I do not believe an apple is in front of me.

And that's where we differ.

Your reasoning: I don't know whether the object in front of me is an apple or not, so by default my answer is no.

My reasoning: I don't know whether the object in front of me is an apple. I may or may not be more inclined to answer "yes" or "no" but in the end I simply don't know.

In my opinion it's terribly black and white to see answering questions you don't know the answer to as a virtue, and remaining neutral as "avoiding the question". But once again, I'm pretty sure you feel differently about it since we obviously think in different ways.

[SolemnBoy]

Again, I don't think we're arguing beliefs, I just don't see why "agnostic" is necessary. It's not adding anything to the term atheist that isn't already implied. At the most it softens the blow from what's considered a word that has lot of negative connotations attached to it.

Except it's not always implied. There are many atheists who say they know there's no God and there are many theists who say they know there is a God. The level of certainty in someone's belief is not always implied to be lower than 100%. If that was the case I would probably agree that the agnostic term is excessive.

[Wade]

And that's where we differ.

Your reasoning: I don't know whether the object in front of me is an apple or not, so by default my answer is no.

My reasoning: I don't know whether the object in front of me is an apple. I may or may not be more inclined to answer "yes" or "no" but in the end I simply don't know.

In my opinion it's terribly black and white to see answering questions you don't know the answer to as a virtue, and remaining neutral as "avoiding the question". But once again, I'm pretty sure you feel differently about it since we obviously think in different ways.

At this point, it's very likely that I'm confused....

However, "avoiding the question" was a poor choice of words, i admit. We may have different beliefs, but I really don't think so. If anything, I suck at articulating my thoughts properly.

I agree with your reasoning word for word, my answer to the apple question is "I simply don't know" as well. But in my thinking, that also means that "I do not believe that the object is an apple." I don't think that those two thoughts are incompatible.

What I am certainly not saying is "I believe there is no apple in front of me" which is a very different statement.

And also, my brain is extremely fickle. It's highly probable that I may convert to Mormonism at some point tomorrow.